Sedition Laws in India: Relevance and Challenges

What is sedition?

Since time immemorial, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, also known as the sedition law, has caused arguments. It was initially brought in by the British imperialists in 1870 with the objective of crushing the budding independence movement and keeping the people of India under control. Today, the discourse has taken a turn and now axes on whether such a law is applicable in a democratic society that prides itself on free speech. This paper discusses the history, legal understanding and growth, criticism and current status and prospects of the sedition law in India.[1]

Yet today, however, the debate about Section 124A has changed dramatically since then. The essential question, which has replaced others firmly, is whether there is a room for such a law aimed at limiting political opposition in a modern country like India – which professes to provide freedom of speech and expression.[2] They explain the need of the amendment citing the reasons of national security and eliminating antinational activities while they are inclined into violence – whereas others consider it simply a leftover of colonial slavery which has no room within a democratic sphere. In this paper, the author sheds light on the history of the sedition law, the law’s interpretation, law’s development through years, the criticism that the law gets, and the final situation towards the law in India and its likelihoods.[3]

Historical Background of Sedition Law

The sedition law in India, codified under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has a long and debated history tied to its colonial origins. Introduced by the British in 1870, the law aimed to smother any opposition against the colonial government and prevent the growing nationalist movement from gaining impetus. The British used the sedition law as a powerful weapon to suppress those who needed independence, imprisoning key leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. For the British Empire, the sedition law was an essential instrument in maintaining control over the people of India by imparting fear and crushing any form of opposition.[4]

After India gained independence in 1947, the sedition law [5]remained part of the Indian Penal Code, even though it was seen by many as a symbol of colonial coercion. The new independent government chose to retain it, arguing that the law was necessary to maintain national security and prevent any threats to the steadiness of the newly formed nation[6]. In a country as varied as India, where different cultural, religious, and political groups exist, the government believed it was important to have legal measures in place to prevent activities that could lead to violence or uncertainty.

However, in spite of the government’s intentions, the sedition law has been widely criticized for its indistinct language and its potential for misuse. Terms like “hatred,” “contempt,” and “disaffection” are open to broad interpretation, allowing the law to be used in ways that go beyond its original purpose. There have been numerous examples where the sedition law has been used to target political rebels, journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who criticize the government or express their opinions on matters of public interest. This has led to the belief that the law is being weaponized to silence critics and limit the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The misappropriation of the sedition law has raised serious concerns in a democratic society like India, where the right to express one’s opinion is fundamental to good governance and accountability. The freedom to disapprove the government and hold it accountable is essential in a democracy, and any law that emerges this freedom weakens the very foundation of democratic principles. The continued use of the sedition law, which was originally introduced to suppress the voices of freedom fighters[7], has led to general alarm and calls for its repeal or reform.

In recent years, the debate around the sedition law has gained momentum, with many legal experts, activists, and even the judiciary expressing the need to review its significance. The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 consultation paper, suggested that the sedition law be reconsidered and redefined to prevent its misappropriation. The Supreme Court [8]of India has also expressed concerns over the chance use of the law and has called for greater examination before filing sedition charges. The Court emphasized that sedition should be applied only in cases where there is a direct encouragement to violence or a threat to public order.

Relevance of Sedition Law

National Security: significant argument in favor of the holding of the law is its role in national security. The country is very miscellaneous with respect to cultural, religious, and political groups, and at times inspiring speeches or actions may lead to violence or public disorder. The sedition law[9] serves as a warning to crime or prevents an individual or group from provoking violence, disorderly peace, and posing a threat to the truthfulness of the nation. It also addresses threats such as terrorism, rebellion, and pro-independence movements that could destroy the dominion of the country.

Preventive Measure against Hate Speech:[10] Gradually, in the digital world, information is spreading and misrepresentation is invented rapidly through social media platforms as well as other mediums; thus, sedition law falls within the area to control hate speech that can lead to common riots or disturb public order. The law is essentially some kind of safety wall that shields the individual from loathing speeches that inflame against the government or towards communities, thus activating bulk conflicts. Another significant argument in favor of the maintenance of the law is its role[11] in national security. The country is very various with respect to cultural, religious, and political groups, and at times inspiring speeches or actions may lead to violence or public disorder. The sedition law serves as a warning to crime or prevents an individual or group from provoking violence, troublemaking peace, and posing a threat to the honor of the nation. It also discourses threats such as terrorism, rebellion, and nationalist movements that could destroy the sovereignty of the country.

Relevant as a Deterrent to Anti-State Activities[12]: The law also has significance in the sense that it acts as a warning to those elements or groups that are spoiling in activities against the interest of the state. In a country spinning with problems such as internal rebellions, pro-independence movements, and terrorist activities, the argument advanced by the advocates of the sedition law is that this kind of lawmaking is a protection against anti-national activities which would otherwise crumble national stability.

Challenges Associated with Sedition Law

Misuse for Suppressing Free Speech: One of the biggest problems friendly to this law of sedition is its recurring misuse by the doings of law enforcement[13]. The uncertainty in the language of Section 124A, words like “hatred,” “contempt,” and “disaffection,” make it liable to to accidental judgment. This has resulted in the situation that people get charges of sedition only for criticism of government or raising rebellious voices, thereby unpleasant political opposition and discouraging free speech. It violates the fundamental right enjoyed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India regarding freedom of speech and expression.

Chilling Effect on Disagreement[14]: It has a chilling effect on India’s freedom of speech as the threat to be thrilling with sedition. Quite a few citizens along with activists, journalists, and even public intelligences may hesitate to speak about important social and party-political issues due to fear of trial. It is not a very healthy sign for a democratic society; criticism and hostility are the very tools to make the powers responsible and to sponsor healthy debate.

Colonial Legacy: The sedition law is a colonial heritage planned by the British to downfall Indian freedom fighters[15]. This type of law has no place in any current democracy like India, which reflects human rights and freedom leading. Britain smuggled this law to India and void it from its statute book in 2009, as it against democratic ideologies. But India leftovers with the law that raises questions about its requirement to the protection of rights of its citizens.

Encouragement on Civil Society: Sedition law under claim to journalists, activists, and civil society members expressively effects civic engagement and activism[16]. In this favor, civil society managements play an identical important role when issues such as human rights ruins, corruption, and social changes are brought to the humanity of the people. The risk of sedition protections stops civil society administrations from successfully doing their work, thereby limiting them from contributing significantly in informing the public and checking government movements.

Current Status and the Way Forward

In recent years, there have been rising concerns over the misappropriation of the sedition law[17]. Calls for fighting or improving the law have been rising. “The Supreme Court has itself cast its uncertainties on some of the judgments passed under this law and has, on a few occasions, asked for this law to be reviewed,” says Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University. The Law Commission of India[18] has even optional that the law of sedition should be reviewed and redrafted and redefined so that it may not be used arbitrarily.
In the future, therefore, the scope of the sedition law needs to be well-defined with the purpose of clearly advisory what is unwritten by the term ‘sedition’. Such an act should be narrowed to an act which provokes or brings to commit strength or extremely creep up public order and national safety. This way, its misuse to target people working out their rights to free speech would be limited.
Judicial mistake can be brought in, such that the responsibilities of sedition are filed only with proper explanation. This will ensure cases go through proper checks before persons elaborate are taken into custody, thereby dipping the misuse. At the same time, there is a need to train the law implementation officers in how the sedition law is to be applied by judges, in an effort to prevent uninformed actions on their part.
Lastly, the encouragement of a culture of forbearance for criticism[19] and rebellion is critical to the workings of a healthy democracy. The government needs to realize that rebellion is not a threat but a needed element of democratic governance. Open discussion and debate[20] can become a strength to the nation and public trust in democratic establishments.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case (1908)

Backgound:
[i]Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a great nationalist and one of the first politicians of India who raised openly against the British government[21]. He is especially known for his writings and debating skills with his name for Self-rule (Swaraj) and Indians’ rights. In such a way, he spoken, “Swaraj is my legacy and I shall have it,” hence challenging Indians to take their independence
Charge and Trial[22]
In 1908, Tilak was engaged in sedition for his editorial work in Kesari newspaper and the dialogues he delivered in public where he degraded British authority and encouraged Indians to wake up governmentally and then fight for the colonial consultant. The British the ruling classes held him guilty of affecting feelings of hate against the government because his messages may stir up disorder and bloodshed.
Surely, the government was nervous and anxious about the increasing popularity and effect of Tilak among the Indian commonalities as he was tried in a special court set up by the British during his trial. He claimed before the court that what he was doing was just rising the legitimate objectives of his countrymen and promoting the cause of self-rule.
Tilak was convicted and sentenced to six years of difficult imprisonment in Mandalay prison, Burma (now Myanmar) 1909. The trial and sentencing did gain great popular public attention as well as compassion for Tilak, and further inflamed his status as a martyr in the eyes of most Indians.

 

References:

[1] A.G. Noorani, The Trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 12

[2] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (33rd edn, LexisNexis, 2016), p. 892.

[3] Law Commission of India, Report No. 267: Sedition, August 2018, p. 36

[4] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (33rd edn, LexisNexis, 2016), p. 892.

[5] A.G. Noorani, The Trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 18.

[6]  K.G. Kannabiran, The Wages of Impunity: Power, Justice, and Human Rights (Orient Blackswan, 2004), p. 115.

[7] K.C. Bhattacharya, “Sedition Law: A Threat to Democracy?” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 53, no. 26, 2018, pp. 10-12.

[8] Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955, wherein the Supreme Court clarified the scope of sedition and emphasized that it should not infringe upon the fundamental right to free speech.

[9] Law Commission of India, Report No. 267: Sedition, August 2018, p. 38.

[10] I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (8th edn, Eastern Book Company, 2018), p. 123.

[11] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (33rd edn, LexisNexis, 2016), p. 893.

[12] A.G. Noorani, Constitutional Questions in India: The President, Parliament, and the States (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178.

[13] Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 66.

[14] K.G. Kannabiran, The Wages of Impunity: Power, Justice, and Human Rights (Orient Blackswan, 2004), p. 119

[15] Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (Penguin, 2017), p. 108.

[16] K.G. Kannabiran, The Wages of Impunity: Power, Justice, and Human Rights (Orient Blackswan, 2004), p. 123

[17] Law Commission of India, Report No. 267: Sedition, August 2018, p. 32.

[18] Law Commission of India, Report No. 267: Sedition, August 2018, p. 29.

[19] Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 90.

[20] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (33rd edn, LexisNexis, 2016), p. 912.

[21] Stanley Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale: Revolution and Reform in the Making of Modern India (University of California Press, 1961), p. 101.

[22] A.G. Noorani, Indian Political Trials, 1775-1947 (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 215.

[i] N.S. Inamdar, Tilak and the Struggle for Indian Independence (Rupa & Co., 2008), p. 157.